The Future of Canon EF and Nikon F Mounts

[hogloff]

Presumably Nikon will make two mirrorless cameras,a crop sensor camera with a new lens mount-this will be the small camera.The full frame hopefully will retain the F mount and be larger which won't be a problem since many of the lenses used on such cameras are larger anyway the size of the body is not really an issue.

Presumably and hopefully are correct...that's all one can do today as Nikon has shown us squat as far as competency in the mirrorless world.

[JKoerner007]

The people shelling out $6K to $16K on a lens invariably use "LensCoat" neoprene wrap on the lens.  So who knows what the lens actuall looks like underneath the RealTree camo. 

On the contrary, in sports, no one buys such LensCoats.

For wildlife, the only photographers who need to cover their eye-sore, position-compromising, can-be-seen-from-outer-space white lenses are those who've purchased them.

Nikon uses (as well as Sigma users) very often do not, because there is no need. Matte black doesn't stand out like a sore thumb; in fact, it can blend with the shadows.

Those wildlife shooters with dark lens variety may choose camo "just because" but don't have the same need to do so.

The same would be true for surveillance use.

[BernardLanguillier]

Presumably and hopefully are correct...that's all one can do today as Nikon has shown us squat as far as competency in the mirrorless world.

A bit unfair, the Nikon 1 remains one of the (if not the) fastest focusing mirrorless on the market. And focusing is the main challenge with mirrorless isn't it?

Cheers,
Bernard

[JKoerner007]

Presumably Nikon will make two mirrorless cameras,a crop sensor camera with a new lens mount-this will be the small camera.

I would prefer to see a full-frame version (that can use existing lenses with mount adjustments), and then a micro 4/3 version (with a new, smaller Nikkor lens portfolio to accompany it).

The full frame hopefully will retain the F mount and be larger which won't be a problem since many of the lenses used on such cameras are larger anyway the size of the body is not really an issue.

Agree.

[hogloff]

A bit unfair, the Nikon 1 remains one of the (if not the) fastest focusing mirrorless on the market. And focusing is the main challenge with mirrorless isn't it?

Cheers,
Bernard

Maybe competency was the wrong word...Nikon is a big zero in the mirrorless market share. You are either all in or just get out as companies such as Sony, Fuji and Olympus are all in and making hey.

So far Nikon just tinkered with mirrorless. It will be interesting if Sony allows Nikon to use their sensors in mirrorless cameras...if not, that is a huge hurdle to cross.

[BernardLanguillier]

Maybe competency was the wrong word...Nikon is a big zero in the mirrorless market share. You are either all in or just get out as companies such as Sony, Fuji and Olympus are all in and making hey.

So far Nikon just tinkered with mirrorless. It will be interesting if Sony allows Nikon to use their sensors in mirrorless cameras...if not, that is a huge hurdle to cross.

Yes, indeed.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Guillermo Luijk]

There is no way that Nikon (or Canon) will reuse its SLR mount, which would severely hamper design choice for some lenses. This is particularly true of F mount, which is both deeper and narrower than EF mount. Nikon will follow what has already been done by Canon (EF-M), Sony, Olympus and Panasonic.

I doubt Nikon will design any new mirrorless mount as a replacement for the F mount. Starting from scratch in an already nearly-saturated mirrorless market would be suicidal. For good or bad, Canon and Nikon are slaves of their current systems and customer base. Sony, Olympus and Panasonic had a very different situation, they had little to loose and opened a new market.

Regards

Enviado desde mi ALE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

[BJL]

I doubt Nikon will design any new mirrorless mount as a replacement for the F mount. Starting from scratch in an already nearly-saturated mirrorless market would be suicidal. For good or bad, Canon and Nikon are slaves of their current systems and customer base.

Canon has already taken the approach that I predict in its "APS-C" format EOS M series, using a new mirrorless mount (EF-M) and offering an adaptor for using existing EF and EF-S lenses. And from what I have read, it is wide enough to work with 36x24mm format too. I see nothing suicidal about that approach to backward compatibility, and no reason why what works for Canon (along with Olympus, Panasonic, Sony etc.) would not also be the best approach for Nikon. The only mirrorless design suicide I have seen was the Pentax K-01 with its deep Pentax KAF lens mount.

It seems that some people believe that keeping the same lens mount—rather than using an adaptor for backward compatibility—is important to persuading SLR lens owners that those lenses will be usable on a mirrorless body.  I do not understand that—for one thing, my EM5 with mount adaptor attached is no bulkier or less convenient than a mirrorless body with Four Thirds SLR lens mount would be.

[Guillermo Luijk]

Canon has already taken the approach that I predict in its "APS-C" format EOS M series, using a new mirrorless mount (EF-M) and offering an adaptor for using existing EF and EF-S lenses. And from what I have read, it is wide enough to work with 36x24mm format too. I see nothing suicidal about that approach to backward compatibility, and no reason why what works for Canon (along with Olympus, Panasonic, Sony etc.) would not also be the best approach for Nikon.

When a FF EF-M mirrorless appears in the market I'll agree with you. Meanwhile I'll consider the EF-M just an experiment Canon is doing to find out the interest of its customer base in mirrorless and working with adaptors. So far Canon has shown very little interest in developing an interesting lens lineup.

Let's assume Canon takes the way of replacing/migrating its FF EF line to a EF-M mirrorless: what kind of lenses would Canon produce? new EF-M lenses no EF user can buy? new EF lenses that need an adaptor over the new FF body and perpetuate the old EF system?.

I wish you were right, because a short flange Canon mirrorless body is something I'd be interested in. But I doubt present FF EF users will prefer to start messing with adaptors rather than just take their EF lenses and plug them onto the new EF mirrorless FF body.

Regards

Enviado desde mi ALE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

[BJL]

Let's assume Canon takes the way of replacing/migrating its FF EF line to a EF-M mirrorless: what kind of lenses would Canon produce? new EF-M lenses no EF user can buy? new EF lenses that need an adaptor over the new FF body and perpetuate the old EF system?.

A bit of both: exiting EF and EF-S lenses would continue to be offered, and new ones launchd, for as long as Canon DSLR users keep buying them; meanwhile, more EF-M lenses would be added. Canon has run two lens systems for many years (EF and EF-S), Nikon has juggled two and briefly three (FX, DX, 1) and I have lost track of how many lens lines Sony is offering during its complicated transition toward mirrorless!  So I am sure they can handle it.  Note for one thing that for focal lengths longer than about 50mm, there is no need to modify existing SLR lens optical designs, so they could be offered in two versions. For comparison, third party lens makers like Sigma, Tamron and Tokina have been offering more than two versions of many of their lenses, and are now offering a mix of both SLR and mirrorless-specific lenses.

But I doubt present FF EF users will prefer to start messing with adaptors rather than just take their EF lenses and plug them onto the new EF mirrorless FF body.

Photographers who abhor "messing with adaptors" can just put one in place permanently and keep using SLR-mount lenses exclusively!   However, camera makers cannot allow themselves to be so tied to the past, and to existing long-term customers at the expense of losing the next generation of photographers to more logical EVF camera designs from Sony, Olympus, Fujifilm and so on.

P. S. Maybe in the spirit of the Nikon Df, upscale retro EVF bodies with SLR-mounts could also be offered!

[Guillermo Luijk]

So in a market which is year after year becoming smaller and smaller, Canon has to produce: EF FF lenses, EF APS lenses, EF-M FF lenses and E-FM APS lenses. I don't swallow that.

Regards


Enviado desde mi ALE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

[JKoerner007]

what kind of lenses would Canon produce? new EF-M lenses no EF user can buy? new EF lenses that need an adaptor over the new FF body and perpetuate the old EF system?.

Don't think it's that complicated.

CaNikon could produce their own adapters to existing lenses.

Much like a teleconverter, but no glass needed inbetween. Same fast AF as if nothing was there. (The teleconverter between my camera and lens doesn't limit my lens in any way.)

If anything, if the old EF or F-mount lenses faded, the whole lens wouldn't need to be redone ... just a small mount adjustment.

Adapters could go either way ... older glass to newer mirrorless camera ... and should there be a dedicated mirrorless mount in the future, this could likewise be adapted back to an older body ... making a complete obsolescence improbable.

[hogloff]

Don't think it's that complicated.

CaNikon could produce their own adapters to existing lenses.

Much like a teleconverter, but no glass needed inbetween. Same fast AF as if nothing was there. (The teleconverter between my camera and lens doesn't limit my lens in any way.)

If anything, if the old EF or F-mount lenses faded, the whole lens wouldn't need to be redone ... just a small mount adjustment.

Adapters could go either way ... older glass to newer mirrorless camera ... and should there be a dedicated mirrorless mount in the future, this could likewise be adapted back to an older body ... making a complete obsolescence improbable.

No thanks. One reason I moved away from DSLR's was the increasing bulk and weight of the system which includes lenses. No way would I take the behemoth existing lenses, add an additional adapter for more weight and bulk and then stick that only a mirrorless body...just to get a lens that has not been designed for that mirrorless system...but rather tacked on. Not a chance.

I want the benefits that go along with mirrorless and that is a reduction of bulk and weight...not a Frankenstein conglomerate of modern camera with lenses designed for a prehistoric system.

[JKoerner007]

No thanks. One reason I moved away from DSLR's was the increasing bulk and weight of the system which includes lenses. No way would I take the behemoth existing lenses, add an additional adapter for more weight and bulk and then stick that only a mirrorless body...just to get a lens that has not been designed for that mirrorless system...but rather tacked on. Not a chance.

I want the benefits that go along with mirrorless and that is a reduction of bulk and weight...not a Frankenstein conglomerate of modern camera with lenses designed for a prehistoric system.

You act as if "you" are the measure of all things ... and that all companies should alter their agenda to build 'you' the perfect gear for 'your' needs, to the exclusion of all others 

Here's a thought you haven't been able to consider, thinking only of your own need: other people love those "behemoth lenses" without which they couldn't capture the wildlife/action that makes their world go round-and-round.

Now, if the finest telephotos can be have their dimensions reduced in the future, without losing quality, hey, we'd all welcome that. But right now, "it is what it is." Sony simply has nothing to offer professional sports/wildlife photographers ... except to (how did you say it?) offer a "Frankenstein conglomerate" of other companies' adapters + other companies' lenses. Yet even that is a loser for Sony.

In fact, in DP Reviews latest article, put up yesterday, concludes the recent "true pro" effort from Sony, the A9, proves dismal with Canon's two best lenses. The article directly criticizes the smallness of the A9 compared to true pro cameras (1Dx/D5):

"Battery grip all-but-required for comfortable use with larger lenses."

"... it seems like using off-brand glass while you wait for Sony to catch up just isn't a great option ... the lack of true subject tracking (Lock-on AF modes) or continuous focus at speeds higher than ~2.5 fps (or in video) will probably be a deal breaker for many fast-action photographers ... like all previous Sony bodies, you'll only have access to the a9's slowest continuous drive mode (2fps) when you're adapting your own glass."

Don't believe me, read the article: Sony a9 falls short with Canon 300mm and 400mm lenses.

If you can't handle larger glass, that's okay ... enjoy your gear. However, your repeated angry outbursts against large, elite telephoto lenses is getting old.

Allow people to make their own choices.

Thanks.

[uaiomex]

Why not design an (in Canon case) EF-mount "dslr" body with a moving sensor carriage that could go from a 44mm flange to say 16mm?  It could also have its own AF Contax style.

This way all EF glass could be used instantly and would allow for the FF mirrorless lens line to grow. The same for any FF dslr manufacturer.

Eduardo

Don't think it's that complicated.

CaNikon could produce their own adapters to existing lenses.

Much like a teleconverter, but no glass needed inbetween. Same fast AF as if nothing was there. (The teleconverter between my camera and lens doesn't limit my lens in any way.)

If anything, if the old EF or F-mount lenses faded, the whole lens wouldn't need to be redone ... just a small mount adjustment.

Adapters could go either way ... older glass to newer mirrorless camera ... and should there be a dedicated mirrorless mount in the future, this could likewise be adapted back to an older body ... making a complete obsolescence improbable.

[hogloff]

You act as if "you" are the measure of all things ... and that all companies should alter their agenda to build 'you' the perfect gear for 'your' needs, to the exclusion of all others 

Here's a thought you haven't been able to consider, thinking only of your own need: other people love those "behemoth lenses" without which they couldn't capture the wildlife/action that makes their world go round-and-round.

Now, if the finest telephotos can be have their dimensions reduced in the future, without losing quality, hey, we'd all welcome that. But right now, "it is what it is." Sony simply has nothing to offer professional sports/wildlife photographers ... except to (how did you say it?) offer a "Frankenstein conglomerate" of other companies' adapters + other companies' lenses. Yet even that is a loser for Sony.

In fact, in DP Reviews latest article, put up yesterday, concludes the recent "true pro" effort from Sony, the A9, proves dismal with Canon's two best lenses. The article directly criticizes the smallness of the A9 compared to true pro cameras (1Dx/D5):

"Battery grip all-but-required for comfortable use with larger lenses."

"... it seems like using off-brand glass while you wait for Sony to catch up just isn't a great option ... the lack of true subject tracking (Lock-on AF modes) or continuous focus at speeds higher than ~2.5 fps (or in video) will probably be a deal breaker for many fast-action photographers ... like all previous Sony bodies, you'll only have access to the a9's slowest continuous drive mode (2fps) when you're adapting your own glass."

Don't believe me, read the article: Sony a9 falls short with Canon 300mm and 400mm lenses.

If you can't handle larger glass, that's okay ... enjoy your gear. However, your repeated angry outbursts against large, elite telephoto lenses is getting old.

Allow people to make their own choices.

Thanks.

Of course I'm only concerned with equipment that works for me...why would I care about equipment I'd never use? You seem to be fixated on looking by lenses where for me I have zero interest as I shoot landscapes and travel....that's why I move to your view inferior Sony system which fits very nicely for my needs.

I can say the same about your views of big heavy bulky equipment...

[JKoerner007]

Of course I'm only concerned with equipment that works for me...why would I care about equipment I'd never use? You seem to be fixated on looking by lenses where for me I have zero interest as I shoot landscapes and travel....that's why I move to your view inferior Sony system which fits very nicely for my needs.

According to the article, the Sony A9 responds better to 3rd party lenses at modest focal lengths, but is "garbaagge" when handling super-telephoto lengths.

Also, tiny mirrorless are dwarfed by full-sized lenses. I have even heard people say the D500 is too small for primo primes.

The larger sizes of true pro cameras is a necessity ... unless someone can figure out a way to make world class super-telephotos "smaller" ...

The reason why I am fixated on lenses is because they're the biggest investment of all. Cameras are much more easily replaced.

I can say the same about your views of big heavy bulky equipment...

 

[JKoerner007]

Why not design an (in Canon case) EF-mount "dslr" body with a moving sensor carriage that could go from a 44mm flange to say 16mm?  It could also have its own AF Contax style.

This way all EF glass could be used instantly and would allow for the FF mirrorless lens line to grow. The same for any FF dslr manufacturer.

Eduardo

Hi. Interesting idea, but I think adapters would be much more practical.

Also, Sigma is able to change the mounts on their own lenses to fit different situations (Canon, Nikon, Sony). Thus, rather than selling/changing the whole lens, having a "mount-changing service" for the same great lens would be another solution.

[hogloff]

The larger sizes of true pro cameras is a necessity ... unless someone can figure out a way to make world class super-telephotos "smaller" ...

Now this is a crock of sh*t. You do realize the vast majority of professional photographers do not use your so called "world class super telephoto" lenses. Professional that shoot portrait, weddings, journalists etc... have zero need for super telephotos. In fact the photographers that do rely on super telephotos are very much in a minority.

Maybe you should rephrase your statement say the minority of professional photographers, mainly sports, rely on super telephotos...whereas the majority of professionals have zero need for the big behemoth lenses and would do just fine with a more lighter compact camera and lens system.

[Guillermo Luijk]

Sony simply has nothing to offer professional sports/wildlife photographers ... except to (how did you say it?) offer a "Frankenstein conglomerate" of other companies' adapters + other companies' lenses. Yet even that is a loser for Sony.

Sony is not offering any of that, Sony simply doesn't have telephoto lenses right now, period. So if you belong to the niche of sports shooters Sony is not the best option right now for you.

Adapters, third party lenses, and how they perform on a Sony body is nothing to blame Sony about because they never offered such features. In the same way as Canon is not to be blamed because Sony GM, Leica or Canon FD glass cannot be used on Canon DSLR's.

Regards




Enviado desde mi ALE-L21 mediante Tapatalk